Published:Proletary, No. 3, September 8, 1906.

      Published according to theProletarytext.Source:Lenin
	  Collected Works,

      Progress Publishers,1965,

      Moscow,Volume 11,

      pages189-193.Translated:Transcription\Markup:R. CymbalaPublic Domain:Lenin Internet Archive

      (2004).You may freely copy, distribute,
	display and perform this work; as well as make derivative and
	commercial works. Please credit “Marxists Internet
	Archive” as your source.•README

ThebookMoscow in December 190Sdeals with events of tremendous
importance in the history of the Russian revolution. As regards the positive
conclusions to be drawn from the Moscow uprising, we gave them in general
outline in our last

				issue.[1]Here we shall dwell on those aspects of this
important, but badly executed, piece of work which have special reference to the
Social-Democrats in Moscow.

The“compilers” of this book state in their preface that they used
material supplied by Social-Democratic organisations, which, however, “as
such have no connection with this work”. It goes without saying that it is
extremely irregular for Social-Democratic organisations to supply such in
formation to persons who are not responsible to these organisations. The
organisations of the workers’ party have now undoubtedly been put in an
awkward position by the slovenly treatment of their materials and by
the choice assortment of banalities with which these have been
“ornamented”.Allthe Moscow Social-Democratic
organisations, and
primarily, of course, their leading body—the Moscow Committee—must,
in our opinion, consider this matter and take measures to prevent a recurrence
of such irregularities.

Hereis one of the many instances of how the anonymous authors of the book
“treat” the material supplied to them by the Social-Democratic
organisations. The authors deal with the role of the revolutionary organisations
in the Moscow events, and, in particular, with the Manifesto of the Combat
Organisation of the Moscow Committee of the Russian Social-Democratic Labour
Party, published on December11, in No. 5 ofIzvestia Sovetov Rabochikh Deputatov.[2]Without giving any coherent account of the contents and character of this document,
    the authors give rein to their profundity by the following criticism. They
    quote No. 5: ’The fighting is at its height. For many hours a number of
    sanguinary battles were fought in the streets of Moscow between the people
    in revolt and the tsar’s troops”, and they “criticise” as
    follows: “We know that there were only minor skirmishes between troops
    and a few fighting squads in the streets of Moscow.” And with mock passion
    they cry out against this “substitution [sic!] of the action of
    handfuls of armed men for mass struggle”, and exclaim:

“Where did the masses come in, how could they display activity?” etc.,
etc.

Whatis this?? Can these efforts to appear profound by such methods of
“criticism” be called a scientific analysis?? Just think: in a
serious historical work, in a special chapter devoted to the part played by the
revolutionary organisations, the authors try to find fault with the fact that
on

December11,i.e., a few daysbeforethe crisis, whennewmethods of struggle were just beginning to be applied, the Soviet
of Workers’ Deputies dared to speak of “a people in revolt”! Perhaps it
should have spoken of “a few fighting squads” in a profoundly
condescending tone and not have called on the people and the masses to assist in
the fight that was beginning? What term but cheap can we apply to these
doctrinaire efforts to be “clever”, these verbal quibbles, when you
find these very same “compilers” in anumberof pas sages
in their book referring to the people as a whole, the “whole
population” turning out on the streets? Do try to understand, you pitiful
creatures, that to be a member of a revolutionary organisation in Moscow on
December 11, and yetnottospeakof the people in revolt
could only mean that the one who kept silent was a member of the Black Hundreds
or a soulless pedant like Pollack in Leonid Andreyev’sTo the
Stars.[3]

Letus proceed. As regards the Manifesto issued by the Combat Organisation and
published in the same issue ofIzvestia(No. 5), the compilers say with
a sneer: “Squads of three or four persons, in the opinion of the authors
of the manifesto, were to present [!] the people with a capitalcity freed from centuries of oppression.” “The Combat Organisation decided
that there was no need f or the masses to act.”

Letus turn to the Manifesto. The compilers of this book donotprint
itin full; they only give excerpts from it. But even in the excerpts
chosen by these “investigators” we read adirectcall of
the Combat Organisation: “Organiseasmany of these squads as
possible.” Thus, the idea of “presenting” something to the
people, the idea that “there was noneedfor the masses to
act”, is imputed to those who from the very first day of the armed
struggle called upon “as many workers as possible” to join the
fighting squads....

Whatis this? Literary slovenliness or hack literature? The authors make no
attempt whatever to analyse the connection between military organisation and
military technique, the functions and interrelation of the direct armed fight
and the auxiliary struggle. They shut their eyes to the past, they forget that
both general strikes and demonstrations in Russia began with a very small, even
insignificant number of participants, judged by present-day standards. Of a
serious historical approach there is not a hint—nothing but truly
nauseating attacks. The Manifesto of the Combat Organisation is quoted on page
145 in fragments, in order to distort its meaning; only further on (page 154) is
it mentioned in passing that the Manifesto contains an instruction to
“spare the lives of infantrymen”, i.e.,directly reckonswith the psychology of the masses, making a clear distinction between
Black-Hundred troops and wavering troops. But the Manifesto of the Octobrists,
which had no bearing whatever on the study of the Moscow uprising, is printedin full!

Social-Democraticorganisations have entrusted information to persons who print
the Manifesto of the Octobrists in full, yet tear fragments out of the
manifestoes of the Combat Organisation of the Soviet of Workers’ Deputies for
banal exercises in commonplace witticisms....

Letus pass on to the conclusions drawn by the compilers:

“The proletariat, as a mass, did not go into action”
(p. 245).

“The Moscow proletariat did not go into action either on
December 9-10 ... or on the following days. This does credit to its intelligence
and discipline” (p. 244).

Doyou hear, comrade workers: it is suggested that it is to your
      “credit” that the masses did not fight enough!! The fact that
      the masses of the workers took an inadequate part in the active,
      aggressive struggle is, if you please, a point in their favour. And the
      fact that the masses of the workers forged ahead of their leaders and
      proceeded to build barricades on a large scale, that they were constantly
      pressing their leaders to call for more drastic action, must no doubt be
      held against them....

“Theevents in Moscow,” say the compilers, “prove that in the present
historical period, in which militarism has been developed to an enormous degree,
a necessary condition for the victory of the people in revolt is that a
considerable part of the army should actively go over to the side of the
insurgent population, or that the masses of the soldiers should categorically
refuse to use arms against the people....”

Ourwiseacres failed to understand or even to notice the struggle that went on
to win over the vacillating troops. Evidently they think that an uprising is
possible without having to fight the Black-Hundred section of the troops,
without an active struggle on the part of the revolutionary people, which throws
the ranks of the army into confusion. They have adopted the standpoint of the
Cadets, who are ready to welcome the “going over” of the troops, but
who declare that an armed uprising or propaganda for it is criminal
folly”....

...“But such action on the part of the troops is conceivable only towards the
end [sic!] of a revolution, which moreover must involve the whole of
the people. The December uprising of the proletariat, which enjoyed only the
passive [?] sympathy of the mass of the bourgeois population,its actions
in pursuit of its own slogans[our italics], could not [!] find support in
the army, and therefore the

’attempt to convert the general strike into an armed
uprising’ could not be crowned with success and must be regarded as a
historical blunder.”

Letthis be a lesson to you, workers of Moscow! Don’t fight for “your own
slogans”!...

Itis hard to imagine how people could sink to such depths of pedantry, to such
Cadet-like poverty of thought, to drawing such banal conclusions from serious
historical material.Let the Moscow Social-Democrats express their indignation to the authors of this
book and call on all Party members and revolutionaries to collect materials for
a worthy account and serious criticism of the December uprising. Let all its
mistakes and shortcomings be ruthlessly exposed for the instruction of the
fighting proletariat. But to the Cadets and the literary hacks the party of the
proletariat must say, “Hands off!”

[1]See pp. 171-78 of this volume.—Ed.

[2]This refers to the newspaperIzvestia Sovetov
Rabochikh Deputatov(Bulletin of the Soviet of Workers’ Deputies),
published daily from December 7 (20) to 12 (25), 1905, during the general strike
and armed uprising in Moscow. This newspaper, like theIzvestiaof the
St. Petersburg Soviet, was printed in defiance of the authorities, under the
protection of volunteer squads at various printing presses of Sytin, Mamontov,
Kushnerev, Chicherin. About 5,000-10,000 copies of each issue were printed. On
December 12 (25) the last, sixth issue ofIzvestiaappeared.

[3]Andreyev, Leonid Nikolayevich(1871-1919)—a
Russian writer, author of the playTo the Starswritten in 1905.